Hammersmith Bridge Full Closure

Tony Arbour: How long do you think it would be reasonable for there to be no direct crossing between Barnes and Hammersmith for buses, cars, ambulances, cyclists and pedestrians and a ban on boats navigating underneath Hammersmith Bridge?

Sadiq Khan: The full closure of Hammersmith Bridge is not reasonable or acceptable at all. I want to get Hammersmith Bridge reopened as soon as possible, but the truth is that the Government failed to take this issue seriously until the bridge finally had to shut to all users this August [2020]. I asked the Transport Secretary for a meeting between us and the relevant Ministers all the way back in August2019. It took more than six months for Ministers to agree to one, despite repeated letters, and a full year for the Government finally to take this issue seriously. The Government preferred instead to promote poorly thought-through plans for a temporary motor bridge. It was clear Ministers wanted to play politics with this issue.
In the meantime, TfL and the GLA worked closely with local boroughs and key partners and submitted three bids for funding for the bridge to the Government, which were either denied or not answered. Even though we do not own the bridge, TfL devoted significant time and resources and invested £16.7million in getting the repair work to the stage where everything was ready to go as soon as funding for the full repairs was provided. The Government is now finally engaging with this issue, holding weekly meetings with Hammersmith and Fulham [London Borough Council], which owns the bridge, Richmond [upon Thames London Borough Council] on the other side of the river, TfL and other affected bodies like the Port of London Authority.
The Department for Transport (DfT) has also launched a taskforce to find an urgent solution. While I welcome any effort to engage with us, I cannot say that setting up a taskforce sounds like it will give Londoners the quick solution they so desperately need. Given the scale of the costs and the disastrous impact COVID-19 has had on TfL’s finances, it is clear that only the Government has the financial means to fund the necessary full repairs. It was notable in the recent announcement, however, that the Government has not yet committed to doing so. The plans TfL has are shovel-ready. Ministers must recognise the gravity of the situation and make the funding available now.

Tony Arbour: Thank you, MrMayor. That argument that you have just advanced, I am afraid, will demoralise my constituents. They will see it as more fiddling while Barnes burns.
Seventeen months ago, I asked you to accept this as a force majeure and for you to act as Mayor, for you to show some leadership and for you to show some determination and to show that you want to do something to meet an ever-present crisis. You have consistently failed to do this. You have repeated today that it is not your fault, “It is not me, guv. It is not my responsibility. It is the Government’s responsibility”. Both of your predecessors, both Labour and Conservative, would have seen this as an emergency and something on which they should have acted, behaved like a Mayor, shown proper leadership and done something. If you had acted 17 months ago, which was long before the COVID crisis, there would now be a proper bridge up and running for everybody, which could replace what has happened.
I want to know, MrMayor, what you are going to do this afternoon with your shovel-ready scheme. If you are convinced that you can go ahead now, why not do so and then present the bill to the Government and to the London Borough of Hammersmith [and Fulham]?

Sadiq Khan: I have listened to the last four minutes of that speech and there was a question at the end. That speech failed to have any reflection on either the fact or the reality. The fact is that April2019 was when a detailed investigation first uncovered the need for major safety-critical work and it was in April2019 that we volunteered £25million towards helping the scheme.
The AssemblyMember fails to remember that this bridge has historically had many problems going back decades. I became the Mayor in 2016. The Member also seems to reflect the reality, which is that the Government has attached huge conditions to TfL’s budget in the deal made with us for the first half of this year. We are now negotiating a financial package for the second half of this year and for the next financial year. We have to reach a deal by 30September [2020].
What the Member cannot run away from is the fact that since April2019 we have been lobbying the Government to help us and the Council, which owns the bridge but cannot afford to repair it. If the Member was being serious about wishing to have the bridge reopened sooner rather than later, he would be lobbying his Government friends to get moving. It took seven months for the Government to finally agree to a meeting with us. Three separate bids were put into the Government and no response. Yet it announced a taskforce, which I am afraid will do a lot of talking but not very much fixing.

Tony Arbour: Thank you, MrMayor. What you do not remember is that in April2019 I did say that this was a force majeure and this was an occasion when you should act. We have consistently heard at every meeting of this Assembly since you have become Mayor about things that you would like to do. We had this very long speech at the very beginning about COVID and about the incompetence and the chaos and all the rest of it. You have created incompetence and chaos on both sides of Hammersmith Bridge. You have caused an existential crisis for the residents of Barnes and the businesses of Barnes and I would venture to say the businesses of west London. You were asked in April‑‑

Sadiq Khan: Is there a question? If we are going to have peroration after peroration, it does not really help to have Mayor’s Question time.

Navin Shah: AssemblyMemberArbour, do you have a question, please?

Tony Arbour: Chair, the Mayor consistently makes long speeches and he accuses other people of making long speeches but he is unwilling to listen to any criticism. He had the opportunity to act‑‑

Navin Shah: Please ask your question.

Tony Arbour: ‑‑ in April. He failed. I want to know what the Mayor is going to do today in respect of this shovel-ready scheme. Will he man up and take action and actually do something to help the people who live on either side of this bridge?

Navin Shah: All right. Finally, we have a question. MrMayor?

Sadiq Khan: Chair, it is not an issue, as he suggests, of manning up. It is a question and an issue of the Government stepping up and providing the funding so desperately needed by residents and businesses‑‑

Tony Arbour: He is passing the buck.

Navin Shah: AssemblyMemberArbour, please do not intervene. You may not be getting the answer you are after, but there is clearly an answer. Please allow the Mayor to answer your question. MrMayor?

Sadiq Khan: What is quite clear when you speak to boroughs on all sides of the river when they are being sensible and when you speak to key stakeholders is that actually what is required is for the Government to step up and give the financial support required to have this bridge reopened as soon as possible. There are two specific pieces of work that could happen pretty quickly: the stabilisation to the bridge - really important - and, secondly, the full remedial works as well. There is also the possibility of a temporary walking and cycling bridge, which should mean that the works to remedy the bridge could happen sooner rather than later. All these options the DfT knows about and the Government knows about. They have been dillydallying.
Rather than TonyArbour [AM] using his influence as a Conservative Member to put pressure on his colleagues in the Government, he is making cheap party-political points, which helps no one get this bridge reopened sooner rather than later.

Tony Arbour: I am not making cheap party-political points. I am asking you to act as Mayor and to show some leadership. If you had done it 17 months ago when I asked you to do so, we would not be having these problems today.

Air pollution and COVID-19

Leonie Cooper: As we move into a transition and recovery phase, how will you minimise London’s air pollution, particularly in light of the concerning link between air pollution and COVID-19?

Sadiq Khan: COVID-19 has shone a harsh spotlight on the impact of exposure to poor air quality on our health. Many people with pre-existing medical conditions which make them more vulnerable to severe illness with COVID-19 are suffering from diseases exacerbated by long-term exposure to air pollution. Disadvantaged and black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) communities have been disproportionately affected by the pandemic and for too long they have also been disproportionately affected by air pollution.
The need for a cleaner, greener London has never been more apparent. Lockdown led to a dramatic fall in toxic air pollution but it is now returning to previous levels once again. We cannot afford to replace one public health crisis with another.
Over the past four years, we have worked tirelessly to improve our air quality and to introduce the world’s first and award-winning Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ), cleaning up the bus, taxi and PHV fleets, and construction machinery and new buildings. Over that time, nitrogen dioxide (NO2) at roadside sites in central London reduced by five times the national average. These improvements directly benefit public health and London’s economy.
There are still too many people, especially children, whose lives will be permanently harmed unless we do more. A clean, green recovery means tackling the twin dangers of climate change and air pollution. It means expanding the ULEZ in October2021 and aiming for a zero-carbon city by 2030.
I have demonstrated the power of this office to improve London’s environment but I have always been clear that the Government needs to step up too. As a minimum, it should match our ambition and adopt the World Health Organization (WHO) target for particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5) as a legally binding goal for 2030 in the Environment Bill. It should also support London and other cities and regions by providing funding for local scrappage schemes and accelerating full electrification of the bus fleet.

Léonie Cooper: Thank you very much, MrMayor, and I would like to thank you again on behalf of my constituents and indeed Londoners for the work that you have been undertaking, which was sorely lacking in the eight years prior to your arrival in 2016. You have taken a whole series of actions.
Recent data that you have been releasing shows that London’s air pollution had fallen five times more than in the rest of the country thanks to your schemes including the ULEZ and we have seen further drops during lockdown, but it is now starting to rise again, as you were saying.
I wondered if you could set out for us how you are proactively working with the boroughs to tackle this rise in air pollution as soon as possible. Engagement with local people and businesses is really important and I know a number of AssemblyMembers have been approached about schemes. I wondered if you could say what you have been doing and what your teams have been doing to engage in that way.

Sadiq Khan: It is really important that we take Londoners with us and the councils are crucial in this. The councils control 95% of the roads in our city. We control just 5%. Also, we have to take businesses and residents with us as well.
There are a number of things we are doing in relation to this. In relation to the ULEZ, you will be aware of the work we did particularly with the five boroughs in central London. We are now working with all the boroughs up to the North Circular and South Circular - in fact, all the boroughs in London - in advance of the ULEZ being extended. We also want to work with them in relation to the scrappage scheme, which many businesses benefit from, that we have introduced and also around Streetspace.
Boroughs separately are doing their own work around local neighbourhood networks and plans and we are working with those councils. You will be aware of the monies given by the Government to help councils with local schemes. We are helping to administer that and are speaking to councils and giving that advice when they ask for it as well.

Léonie Cooper: Thank you very much. There have been some issues because the Government did ask for people to put in bids very quickly and some schemes were installed without the normal consultation in advance. That has created some problems.
An issue that has been raised repeatedly with me is the impact on Londoners who have disabilities. I wondered if you would like to send a message today to disabled Londoners that they will still be able to access their homes and public transport and their access should be maintained or even improved.

Sadiq Khan: You are absolutely right. Accessibility has to be a key criterion when it comes to any scheme. One of the things that TfL has reassured me about is that it is consulting and working with a number of disability groups across our city including its independent Disability Advisory Group. It is really important that we do not, with the best intentions, inadvertently make things really bad for people who are disabled. That is why it is really important that we work with groups, specialists and disabled Londoners to make sure schemes consider their needs as well.

Léonie Cooper: Thank you very much, MrMayor. I think all AssemblyMembers will continue to engage with TfL around the needs of people with disabilities. Thank you, Chair.

Londoners at risk of eviction during coronavirus

Siân Berry: Given London’s high proportion of private renters, what more will you be doing to champion their right not to lose their homes as a result of this crisis?

Sadiq Khan: I am deeply concerned that a quarter of London’s 2.2million privately renting adults have fallen behind on their rent during the pandemic or say they are likely to do so soon, meaning that half a million people are potentially facing eviction in our city. That is why I have written to the Secretary of State [for Housing, Communities and Local Government], calling on the Government to give me the power to freeze private rents in London for two years as an emergency measure to protect renters while the extent of the economic crisis becomes clear. During this time, rents would be allowed to fall but not rise.
To support this, I am asking the Government for a wider package of support for renters: first, giving grants to allow renters to stay in their homes and clear arrears until the Government can make changes to welfare that will support everyone to sustain their tenancies in the longer term; second, expanding access to welfare including scrapping the benefit cap, uprating the Local Housing Allowance to median market rents, additional Discretionary Housing Payments to cover shortfalls and extending eligibility to all renters including those not currently entitled; and third, scrapping section 21 no-fault evictions as soon as possible and restricting access to section 8 evictions until the wider welfare measures outlined are brought in.
Throughout the pandemic, I have lobbied the Government to use the time afforded by the eviction ban to put in place measures to support renters. It has squandered this time, I am afraid, and is actually withdrawing support by bringing the furlough scheme to an end. The Government’s new six-month notice period and the one-month extension of the eviction ban will protect renters from homelessness for a little longer. However, with no further support to help renters stay in their homes, many will simply accrue more and more debt with no means of paying it off.
I have used my own limited powers and resources to provide information and guidance to renters and landlords on the City Hall website and have paid for hundreds of local government officers and almost 1,500 MPS officers to be trained in combatting illegal evictions and supporting renters. In the longer term, the cost to the state of a tsunami of evictions will far outweigh those of putting in place the preventative measures I have outlined, especially if we are given the powers to bring private rents under control. The Government must face the reality that now is not the time to turn off the taps.

Siân Berry: Thank you for laying all that out, MrMayor, and the way you have responded to this question coming up today and the campaigners with your statements yesterday. It is all sorely needed. Looking back, it is notable to see that you have come on such a journey on renting rights since we first started pushing you.
The last time we spoke about this, in May [2020], I was really focused on the arrears that were building up and getting these forgiven. It was unclear then whether you had proposals for that. In your statements yesterday and just now, you have mentioned that you want to see grants to allow renters to stay in their homes and clear arrears.
This is good, but can I just ask: this is the rent forgiveness we are talking about? You would not be expecting those renters to pay this back if it was a grant?

Sadiq Khan: What I am hoping is that the Government looks at the suggestions I have made, one of which is grants, which do help not just with future rent but the arrears that have built up because the accrued rent arrears could lead to grounds for a section8 eviction. You will have seen a package of measures - I am happy to share the letter with you - that I have asked the Government to include in a package of support. As you are aware, Siân, we are talking about potentially 500,000 Londoners at the moment at risk of potential eviction from 22September [2020] onwards.

Siân Berry: That is right. The fairest thing is for the renters themselves to have their debts cleared. It is a significant investment we are asking for, but it would be worth it. This is all progress. Thank you for that and I hope the Government listens.
Unemployment is affecting many renters, particularly young people. The new employment figures are extremely worrying and we have all commented on them. The crisis is prompting more and more people to consider the idea of an unconditional basic support system without cracks for people to fall through. Have you come around to the idea of a universal basic income yet?

Sadiq Khan: I have already said that it is an issue worth exploring. The evidence is mixed - actually not good - from the countries where they have piloted this. You will know that some people are equating a furlough scheme with a sort of universal basic income. It is worth exploring. I am not fully signed up to introducing a universal basic income, but it is worth exploring the idea.
I am particularly conscious not so much of the universal basic income with the furlough scheme but actually that a number of women in London and across the country do work at home, whether it is childcare or other work, and are not remunerated for doing so. You and I both know women whose careers have not progressed because of additional responsibilities that they are not paid for. Often, when they are older, they do not have the same pension as many men have. There is a whole piece of work required to look at unfairness in the workplace.

Siân Berry: Great. I will explore that further with you in future questions. I am pleased you will look at the final results of the finished study. I am out of time. Thank you.

Sadiq Khan: Thanks, Siân.

The Commission for Diversity in the Public Realm

Peter Whittle: On what authority are you establishing the Commission for Diversity in the Public Realm?

Sadiq Khan: London is one of the most diverse cities in the world, but many Londoners do not see themselves or their histories in our public realm. The range of people immortalised in our statues, memorials and buildings do not capture who we are and what we represent. It is an uncomfortable truth, for example, that our nation and our city owe a large part of their wealth to the slave trade. The Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests have, rightly, brought this to the public’s attention.
Under the terms of the Greater London Authority (GLA) Act [1999], I have the authority to establish advisory boards and commissions that promote economic and social development.
As Mayor, I represent all Londoners and I believe it is important that we bring people together and take the right steps to ensure we celebrate the achievements and diversity of everyone in our city. That is why I have established the Commission [for Diversity in the Public Realm].
As well as City Hall, boroughs across London and others are also addressing this important issue and my team is working closely with other global cities including New York and Sydney. In London we have established a Partners Board to provide advice to the Commission, which includes English Heritage, the Arts Council, Black Cultural Archives and Historic England. We are working in partnership with borough leaders from across London, who have welcomed the Commission.
It is important to be clear about why this issue has captured the imagination of Londoners. Our capital’s diversity is our greatest strength, yet our statues, road names and public spaces reflect a bygone era. This cannot continue. We should celebrate the achievements and diversity of everyone in our city and commemorate those who have made London what it is today. To do this, we must discuss the sometimes complicated legacy of our public realm and this is what the Commission is all about.

Peter Whittle: Thank you for that answer, MrMayor. When they drafted that Act that you referred to, they probably did not expect that they would have a Mayor who saw it as perfectly fine to take it upon himself to judge London’s heritage and past.
I would ask you, on a moral level if not a legislative one, what right do you think you have to sit with this committee on judgement on London’s heritage, which has, I would add, a British significance, too, being the capital?

Sadiq Khan: Let me try to unpack the number of issues you raised there.
You are wrong in your analysis of the intentions of the parliamentarians who drafted the GLA Act. You will be aware that previous Mayors have, for example, with others, decided what takes place on the Fourth Plinth. You will be aware, for example, that we now have a new statue in Parliament Square of [Dame] MillicentFawcett [suffragist], which City Hall did a lot of work in getting to where it is today. You will also be aware that previous Mayors have made decisions around the public realm of Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square as well. When you talk about the intention of the GLA Act, I am really happy for us to both explore what the intentions were, but I think you are wrong there.
In relation to me being the judge, I am not. We have set up a Commission, which will have a number of key stakeholders from across our great city who will be providing advice, which we hope to act upon.

Peter Whittle: MrMayor, these people on your Commission are going to be, basically, the Mayor’s mates. They are all going to sing from the same hymn sheet, which is an ideological one. This idea was born when you announced it at the very height of the BLM protests. Basically, the incentive behind this really is one of revising and removal.
MillicentFawcett in Parliament Square was a new statue. We are not really talking about that. We are talking about going back through London’s past. You have mentioned when you have talked about this that much of London comes from a bygone era. That would be history, MrMayor. You do accept that a bygone era is actually history? I repeat: nobody - no Mayor, no elected official, none of us - has the right to simply start removing and revising what has been there for centuries and centuries.
I would take great issue when you say that this has really captured the imaginations of Londoners. It is really demoralising. Can you not see that?

Sadiq Khan: I can see that you are demoralised, but I can speak on behalf of other Londoners who quite like the idea of us looking at public spaces. There could be street names. There could be works of art. There could be murals. There could be blue plaques. There could be other issues as well. I am not quite clear why you feel so threatened by our public realm better reflecting London’s diversity.

Peter Whittle: I do not feel threatened, MrMayor. I do not feel threatened at all. I do not. I do not feel threatened. It is not a question of that. What I do feel very passionate about is somebody basically coming in and essentially saying, “I am going to - or this Commission is going to - start”, as you put it, “deciding which legacies should be celebrated and which should not be”. No one has the right to do that. It is extraordinary. At a time when this city is facing an almost extinction-level event economically, largely which boils down to many of the things you have done such as the Congestion Charge and all of that, you start attacking its heritage. The councils that you refer to are Labour ones. There are 130 of them up and down the country. We all know, MrMayor, that your party does not really like patriotism and does not really like Britain very much, would you say?

Sadiq Khan: That is quite a slur, but coming from you it is no surprise. We are a very patriotic party and I am very proud of the achievements of‑‑

Léonie Cooper: Disgraceful, Chair. Will you reprimand that AssemblyMember? That is an absolute disgrace. He should be immediately reprimanded. That is an insult to the Mayor. It is an insult to Labour Members of this Assembly.

Peter Whittle: No, no, no. Listen, MrMayor‑‑

Léonie Cooper: Yes, yes, yes, that is an insult, AssemblyMemberWhittle.

Peter Whittle: ‑‑ at the very time when this city is facing what it is facing, it is extraordinary that you are now concentrating on setting up something to revise its past history.

Sadiq Khan: Chair, that is a characterisation I do not accept.

Peter Whittle: MrMayor, all I can say is that the one consolation is that it is very unlikely that anyone is going to be putting up a statue to you.

Navin Shah: Can I urge and can I ask AssemblyMembers to be respectful and not play dirty party-political games here? Let me finish, AssemblyMemberWhittle. Please do not cross the border. This is not the place for those kinds of tactics and I will not allow that in this Assembly Chamber. Can we move on?

Peter Whittle: Are you joking, MrChair?

Navin Shah: Can we move on? I am going to move on from here. Can I invite‑‑

Jennette Arnold: Chair, point of order. Chair, point of order.

Navin Shah: Yes, AssemblyMemberArnold?

Jennette Arnold: Yes, I would like some advice because I wish to name AssemblyMemberWhittle and I would like some advice on that process and ask that we put a vote so that he be removed from the Chamber unless he apologises for the statement that he has just made regarding the beliefs of the London Labour AssemblyMembers. I would like some advice on that. You say he is up to the line. I say he has crossed the line.

Léonie Cooper: Hear, hear.

Peter Whittle: Crossed the line where, exactly?

Navin Shah: AssemblyMemberWhittle, I will allow you to speak when it is appropriate. Let AssemblyMemberArnold finish. I am going to then take advice and then we will proceed on that basis. I am chairing the meeting. Please do show that respect and wait for your turn, thank you.

Peter Whittle: OK.

Jennette Arnold: I have finished, Chair. I want some advice on whether this process can be used and I would like to name AssemblyMemberPeterWhittle.

Rebecca Arnold (Assistant Director, Committee and Member Services, Greater London Authority): Chair, Standing Order 2.10 relates to Members’ conduct in meetings. It indicates that:
“The Mayor, Assembly Members and co-opted members of committees shall treat each other, members of GLA staff and other persons with respect and comply with their obligations under the GLA’s statutory Code of Conduct. If in the Chair’s opinion any Member or the Mayor: (1) persistently disregards the Chair’s rulings; (2) behaves improperly or offensively; or (3) wilfully obstructs the meeting’s business; then the Chair or another Member may move that ‘[The named Member] not be further heard’ or that ‘[The Member named] shall immediately leave the meeting’. If the motion is seconded it shall be put to the vote and determined without discussion.”
Standing Orders leave that matter to the Chair as to whether he is of the view that the behaviour is such that it requires that procedure to be invoked, Chair.

Navin Shah: AssemblyMemberWhittle, reflecting on what you have said, which I do deem to be offensive, are you prepared to withdraw your comments and apologise for your conduct?

Peter Whittle: Could you explain to me the particularly supposedly offensive lines?

Sadiq Khan: You saying that I lack patriotism because I am a Labour Party member.

Peter Whittle: It is a very fair comment. I was talking about the Labour Party and the way‑‑

Sadiq Khan: Chair, I am offended. That is really offensive.

Navin Shah: It is not a fair comment.

Peter Whittle: It is an absolutely fair comment judging on the record of the Labour Party over the past 10 years.

Navin Shah: Look, AssemblyMember, really, I had thought that you could really come to a reasonable thinking in terms of‑‑

Peter Whittle: No‑‑

Navin Shah: The Mayor and whatever strategy or whatever he has put forward is in his capacity not as a Labour Party member but as the elected Mayor of London and, therefore, to attack him and to attack the Party is totally inappropriate. Can you please be reasonable and withdraw your comments or apologise?

Peter Whittle: I do not think that the Labour Party shows any particular patriotism and so I will not withdraw the comment.

Onkar Sahota: I second the motion, then.

Siân Berry: Chair, he has repeated it three times. We should act, Chair, because he keeps repeating the comments he made previously and he is definitely not apologising.

Léonie Cooper: Absolutely, and I have already seconded Jennette [Arnold OBE AM] and so we are now fighting AssemblyMemberSahota to second Jennette. This is disgraceful. He should be removed. Some of our relatives died fighting for this country. Some of our relatives have expressed the highest levels of patriotism. How dare you? How dare you?

Peter Whittle: I would say how dare you tinker with British history, memorials and statues?

Navin Shah: Look, I am going to take a vote on this. All right. I am giving you a last, final opportunity to reflect on your comments, apologise for what you have said, which is very clearly not acceptable for the London government, which is what we are. OK?

Peter Whittle: Chair, it was a political remark‑‑

Jennette Arnold: No, Chair, you are giving him the opportunity to speak.

Peter Whittle: ‑‑ and it was not aimed at any particular individual, obviously‑‑

Navin Shah: All right. In that case, I am going to put it to a vote to the Assembly Members‑‑

Gareth Bacon: Chair, before you do that, this is a slightly dangerous precedent because we are effectively ruling out free speech. I am respectful of your ruling and I would ask you perhaps to offer a compromise, which is that AssemblyMemberWhittle withdraw that comment rather than withdraw and apologise. By doing that, you are forcing him into a corner he cannot get out of.

Navin Shah: I have offered both to him. Are you prepared to withdraw your comments? Look, I am trying to be helpful and to maintain the respect and dignity of this Chamber and of this Authority. Therefore, a last opportunity: are you prepared to withdraw your comments?

Peter Whittle: Withdraw as opposed to apologise?

Navin Shah: Withdraw the comments that you made.

Peter Whittle: OK. I withdraw that comment.

Navin Shah: OK. On that basis, I will move on. Can I please request the Members to consider before you make any kind of comments that can be offensive or inflammatory? It does not reflect well on the role that we have as democratically elected Members.